Advanced Review

Habitual behaviors or patterns

of practice? Explaining
and changing repetitive
climate-relevant actions
Tim Kurz,1 Benjamin Gardner,2∗ Bas Verplanken3 and
Charles Abraham4

Understanding human behavior lies at the heart of responses to climate change.

Many environmentally relevant behavior patterns are frequent, stable, and persis-
tent. There is an increasing focus on understanding these patterns less in terms
of deliberative processes and more in terms of habits and routines embedded in
everyday life. Examinations of the ‘habitual’ nature of environmentally consequen-
tial activities have been approached from two theoretically distinct perspectives.
From a social psychological perspective, ‘habit’ is studied as an intra-individual
psychological construct that sustains ingrained behavior patterns in stable settings
and obstructs adoption of more environmentally friendly alternatives. Sociologists
from the social practice tradition, in contrast, have sought to highlight the ways in
which resource-intensive ‘habitual practices’ become established and maintained
in society through a commingling of material, procedural, and socio-discursive ele-
ments. We reflect critically upon key theoretical differences underpinning these
two approaches to repetitive behaviors and review empirical work from both tradi-
tions that speaks to the relevance of ‘habitual behavior patterns’ central to address-
ing climate change. Finally, we examine how changes in habits are theorized and
operationalized within both social psychological and social practice approaches,
and practical implications for promoting environmentally sustainable societies.
© 2014 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

How to cite this article:

WIREs Clim Change 2015, 6:113–128. doi: 10.1002/wcc.327

INTRODUCTION
∗ Correspondence to: b.gardner@ucl.ac.uk
1 Department of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
2 Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College G lobal environmental challenges, such as climate
change, can ultimately be attributed to unsus-
tainable human behavior.1 Technological advances in
London, London, UK
3 Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK ‘clean’ energy and increased efficiency may help to
4 Departmentof Psychology Applied to Health Group, University of reduce the environmental impact of human consump-
Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK tion, but their long-term benefit depends on curtailing
consumption. Behavior change can potentially have
Conflict of interest: The authors have declared no conflicts of considerable environmental impact. For example, up
interest for this article.

Volume 6, January/February 2015 113

© 2014 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
 Advanced Review
to 38% of US CO2 emissions are thought to be gener-
ated by household energy use.1,2 Gardner and Stern1
describe 17 everyday behaviors—such as car-sharing,
cutting driving speed, and lowering the thermostat
on central and water heating—which they estimate
could realistically reduce household carbon emissions
by 30%. Understanding behavior and how it may
be changed lies at the heart of both mitigation and
adaptation responses to climate change. Many envi-
ronmentally consequential behaviors occur frequently
and recurrently in unvarying settings (e.g., showering
each morning, disposing of garbage, or driving to
work). Such behaviors tend to be ingrained and dif-
ficult to change.3 It has been suggested that frequently
repeated behaviors have unique qualities that demand
different explanations to infrequent behaviors.4 Eco-
nomic models, which focus on the maximization of
the expected utility of behavior and its outcomes, offer
limited insight into such behaviors: the strongest pre-
dictor of stable and ongoing behavior tends to be past
performance frequency, rather than the expected costs
and benefits of action.5,6 People tend to deliberate
less over frequent behaviors, paying less attention to
the options available to them, instead continuing to
do what they usually do.7 There is increasing inter-
est in portraying repeated actions less as the out-
come of rational deliberation processes, and more as
part of the ingrained and ‘unthinking’ habits and rou-
tines of everyday life.8
This review focuses on two, theoretically dis-
tinct, disciplinary explanations for recurrent, envi-
ronmentally relevant behavior patterns. Within social
psychology, ‘habit’ is used to refer to an individual
psychological construct, conceptually distinct from
behavior, that generates impulses to repeat famil-
iar behaviors in particular settings. This perspec-
tive focuses on cognitive processes within the actor
and commonly portrays ‘habit’ as a driver of behav-
iors and a barrier to adoption of environmentally
friendly alternatives. Sociologists from the social prac-
tice tradition examine how routinized ‘ways of doing’
emerge, persist, or disappear in society. They focus
less on the individuals who enact such practices and
more on the practices themselves, and how prac-
tices secure ‘carriers’ or ‘hosts’ so as to persist and
reproduce themselves. This review has three aims.
First, we seek to reflect upon the key theoretical
differences underpinning these two approaches to
‘the habitual’. Second, we seek to review empiri-
cal work from both traditions around the relevance
of ‘habit’ to climate-change-related behaviors. Third,
we consider the implications of these perspectives
for understanding and modifying climate-relevant
actions.
114 © 2014 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
wires.wiley.com/climatechange
HABITUAL BEHAVIOR OR PATTERNS
OF PRACTICE?
A Psychological Perspective on Habits
The lay definition of ‘habit’ as a synonym for sta-
ble, persistent behavior is unsatisfactory from a
psychological perspective because it offers no explana-
tory mechanism for the persistence of behavior. Social
psychologists use the term ‘habit’ to refer to a phe-
nomenon whereby behavior persists because it has
become an automatic response to particular, regularly
encountered, contexts9,10 that is acquired through
associative learning.11–13 Repeatedly and satisfacto-
rily performing a behavior (e.g., cycling to work) in
a given context (e.g., on work mornings) reinforces
a mental context–behavioral-response association.
With sufficient context–behavior pairings, the context
is thought to automatically activate the behavior, with
minimal awareness or cognitive effort.9,14 Successful
habitual performance strengthens context–behavior
associations, such that habitual behavior patterns
self-perpetuate in stable environments.15 As a habit
forms, control over initiation of behavior passes from
conscious deliberation to automatic activation of
routines by external cues, thus reducing demand on
attention and memory and freeing mental resources
for other tasks (e.g., thinking about the day ahead
while cycling to work16 ). The downside to this cogni-
tive efficiency is that, once habitual, environmentally
detrimental behaviors become ‘automatic’ and are
difficult to change.
From the social psychological perspective, habit-
ual behaviors are built on three ‘pillars’.8 First,
their formation requires repetition. Second, once
formed, habit directs behavior automatically, i.e.,
habitual behaviors can proceed with minimal con-
scious monitoring.17 Third, habitual behaviors are
context-dependent; only the situational cues with
which the behavior is associated can activate the
habit impulse. Although rarely defined, the implicit
definition of ‘context’ refers to a cue or cluster
of cues to action, potentially internal or external
to the individual.18 It is thought that any context
can support habit development and maintenance.18
Importantly, the psychological definition of ‘habitual
behavior’ is not synonymous with repeated behavior.8
Habitual behaviors are repetitive, but not all repet-
itive behaviors are habitual, e.g., sorting household
waste into kerbside recycling bins each week may
involve repeated deliberation rather than habit. In
addition, behaviors that are habitual in one con-
text may be deliberative in another; a habitual car
commuter, for example, may consciously choose to
drive for a weekend shopping trip. Nonetheless,
Volume 6, January/February 2015
 WIREs Climate Change
many environmentally consequential behaviors are
frequently performed in unchanging settings and so
become habitual.
Social psychology contrasts habitual behav-
iors with deliberative actions. ‘Dual process’ models
portray behavior as arising through two parallel
processing systems: deliberative action arises from
the ‘reflective system’, which regulates action using
conscious weighing of the perceived pros and cons
of action, whereas habitual action arises via an
‘impulsive system’ whereby cues activate associa-
tive links that generate action with little conscious
monitoring.19 Psychological models hypothesize that,
in stable contexts, habit will usually override contrast-
ing intentions in directing action.20 These predictions
have important implications for behavior change:
if habitual behavior is disconnected from conscious
motivation, then it will be resistant to modification
via changing attitudes, beliefs, and values.21
Although the everyday vernacular typically
implies a dichotomous view of habit (habit vs
no habit), habit is more realistically conceived
of on a continuum22 whereby behaviors may be
more or less habitual. Early attempts to estimate
‘habit strength’—the propensity to act habitually, a
proxy for the strength of stored context–behavior
associations23 —based on prior performance fre-
quency were unsatisfactory,24,25 and led to the
development of more sophisticated measures. Appli-
cations of the most popular measure, the ‘Self-Report
Habit Index’ (SRHI26 ), which comprises 12 state-
ments reflecting on habitual action with which
participants rate their agreement, have supported the-
oretical predictions. For example, SRHI scores have
been shown to be stronger predictors of recycling
rates than intentions.27
A Social Practice Perspective
Sociologists working within a social practice frame-
work have developed an alternative theoretical
account of what psychologists term ‘habitual behav-
ior’. Such approaches have their theoretical roots in
the writings of Bourdieu,28 and in Gidden’s29 theo-
rizing of structure and agency (which psychologists
might, respectively, term ‘social context’ and ‘indi-
vidual choice/action’) as mutually constitutive. Social
practice theorists discard the separation of an indi-
vidual actor and the context affecting action. While
the idea of ‘the social’ appears in social psychological
theorizing, it does so in the form of intrapersonal
constructs such as perceived social norms.30
By contrast, social practice accounts view prac-
tices as the site of the social, in that the nature of
Volume 6, January/February 2015 © 2014 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Habitual behaviors or patterns of practice?
the social world is shaped by shared and co-ordinated
performances of practice. For example, practices per-
formed as part of driving (e.g., stopping at traffic
lights and giving way) may be conceptualized as a
product of a complex dynamic of constantly unfold-
ing actions that individuals perform in concert with
other motorists, drawing upon historically evolving
understandings of how one should behave. From
this perspective, understanding ‘behavior’ requires an
understanding of the ways in which routinized prac-
tices are reproduced through dynamic social processes
that involve evolution of both ‘habits’ and practition-
ers. Social practice theorists also point to the dynamic
interplay of interrelated sets of practices. ‘Habitual’
driving, cycling, or walking, for example, can only be
fully understood through an examination of the inter-
connected ‘careers’ of all three practices.31 The focus
and unit of analysis for practice theory is less the indi-
viduals who enact practices (or their cognitive states),
but rather the practices themselves, through empha-
sis on the ways in which practices secure ‘carriers’ or
‘hosts’ whose co-ordinated and shared performance
allows the practice to persist and reproduce. Social
practice researchers are therefore not concerned with
whether an individual ‘possesses’ a habit that ‘drives
behavior’, or how individuals can be led to break
habits. Rather, they seek to map the sociohistorical
trajectories of sets of practices and the ways in which
their co-ordinated habitual performance can become
established (or derailed) as a normalized aspect of the
everyday social world.31,32
Different theoretical delineations of the spe-
cific combinative elements of a practice have been
offered.33 The model that has gained most traction,
especially in policy circles, focuses on the dynamic
relations between three different elements suggested
to combine to constitute a practice.34 The first relates
to the material elements that afford enactment of a
practice, such as hard infrastructure and technolo-
gies (systems of hot water provision, for example,
in the case of showering). The second concerns the
procedural elements that render a practice person-
ally and relationally functional (e.g., increased ‘time
squeeze’35 and a requirement for bodily cleansing
to be wedged between other activities within daily
sequences). The third element is the shared contem-
porary socio-discursive meanings that construct out-
comes of a practice as desirable or required (e.g.,
notions of ‘freshness’ associated with bodily states36 ).
Central to this theoretical position is the notion that
these elements are dynamically related to each other,
and that their commingling at a particular histori-
cal moment allows particular activities to take hold
as habitual practices. Showering daily, for example,
115
 Advanced Review
has become a common practice for many people
in the UK, in contrast with earlier historical peri-
ods when personal hygiene routines typically involved
a weekly bath. While daily showering might often
be explained as a ‘convenient’ and ‘necessity’ habit,
it is only through provision of requisite material
infrastructure and technology that showering becomes
experienced as convenient.37 The notion of a 5-min
shower between rising, eating breakfast, and leav-
ing for work being ‘convenient’ is only understand-
able through contemporary procedural systems of
time management and the temporal organization of
daily life. That it is a ‘necessity’ to have showered
before departing the private sphere of the home for
the public world of work is only rendered sensible
by notions of bodily ‘freshness’ that have emerged in
recent decades.36
The social psychological and social practice
approaches offer distinct analyses of environmentally
(un)sustainable practices and implications for bringing
about change. A psychological analysis of showering
would focus on articulation of the extent to which
repetition of a daily morning shower routine leads to
it becoming an automated behavioral response to a
particular spatiotemporal context (i.e., waking on a
weekday morning at home). Such automaticity would
be expected to render showering behavior resistant to
interventions targeting deliberative processing systems
(e.g., alerting individuals to the importance of water
conservation). Assuming that the context of enact-
ment remained unchanged, social psychologists would
recommend changing habitual showering patterns by
promoting techniques for mindfully breaking auto-
matic engagement in showering.21,38 While for social
psychologists, once habitual associations are estab-
lished, the context serves only to cue the behavior, the
social practice perspective views what the psychologist
terms ‘context’ and the practice as inextricably bound;
social practices are understood to both shape and
be shaped by the elements that constitute the social
world at any particular historical juncture. Thus, a
social practice analysis would focus on the socio-
historical processes that have led to the practice of
high-frequency showering (as a social ‘entity’) becom-
ing able to capture so many devoted recruits.37 Such
behaviors may be cognitively ‘habitual,’ but exponents
of social practice theory33,34,36,39 argue that we should
seek to understand the dynamics of the habitual prac-
tice (showering), and the ways in which it has come to
be produced and maintained through the social and
material organization of daily life. The focus of both
analysis and intervention design from the social prac-
tice perspective is therefore a mapping of the elements
that comprise and promulgate a specific practice in a
116 © 2014 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
wires.wiley.com/climatechange
particular sociohistorical moment, and the relations
between these elements and other practices.34
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
FOR CLIMATE-RELEVANT BEHAVIOR
AS ‘HABITUAL’
Below we review evidence, drawn from both perspec-
tives, that speaks to the potential utility of conceptu-
alizing various climate-relevant behaviors in term of
‘the habitual’, to illustrate how the two perspectives
approach similar topics differently. Our review is illus-
trative rather than comprehensive in so much as our
selection of behavioral domains is not exhaustive.
Habitual Water and Energy Use
Psychological Approaches
Psychologists have emphasized the repetitive nature
of many household consumption behaviors, including
use of water (e.g., laundering) and energy (e.g., switch-
ing off lights and appliances). Evidence suggests that
most of these behavioral patterns are characterized
by low conscious monitoring (i.e., automaticity) and
performed in unvarying contexts. An examination of
the formation of ecologically friendly washing habits
among a cross section of the Swedish population40
found that although conscious attitudes favoring sus-
tainable behaviors (e.g., pro-environmental values and
a sense of stewardship) were most strongly associated
with behavior at the early stages, people were more
likely to maintain environmentally friendly washing
and form habits when experiences of the new behavior
were rewarding.
Stronger perceived consumption habits are
associated with consumption patterns. An exten-
sive study of Australian households41 showed that
household water meter readings were predicted by
water-consumption habits, such as washing clothes,
though ‘habit’ was measured via subjective ratings
of behavioral frequency rather than automaticity.
Households with relatively low water consumption
tended to have habits consistent with lower consump-
tion, and deemed water conservation as personally
important. This study suggested that both deliberate
and habitual modes of processing shape sustainable
pro-environment behavior patterns.
Household energy consumption can be increased
not only by doing environmentally detrimental
behaviors but also by not doing environmentally
friendly behaviors (e.g., not switching the tap off
when brushing teeth). In situations where there
is a choice between environmentally friendly and
environmentally unfriendly behavioral options, the
Volume 6, January/February 2015
 WIREs Climate Change
failure to enact the ‘green’ option may be due to
habitual performance of the environmentally detri-
mental alternative. Commentators have argued that,
in these situations (e.g., when leaving a lit room),
consideration should be given to both habitual
pro-environmental responses (turning off the light)
and conflicting habitual non-responses (exiting the
room); these have been termed ‘acting’ habits and
‘non-acting’ habits, respectively.42 One experiment42
showed that both ‘acting’ and ‘non-acting’ habits
could be automatically and situationally triggered.
The authors suggested that both acting habits and
non-acting habits can become embedded in larger
routines or practices, though the latter may be harder
to detect and target.
Social Practice Approaches
The habitual reproduction of water- and
energy-consuming practices within the home has also
captured the attention of social practice researchers.
Applying a social practice approach to such domestic
use highlights the ordinary, mundane dimensions
of daily life in a way that scrutinizes the rituals of
water use that have taken on a largely routine and
inconspicuous status as practices of consumption.43
Hand et al.37 analyzed the evolution in Britain
of daily showering into a commonly and habitually
reproduced practice, highlighting the elements that
combine to ‘constitute and re-constitute the business
of showering’ (p. 3). At the material level, it is argued
that technological developments in water provision
and heating in the 1950s (e.g., piped water into homes,
electric point-of-use heating, and power showers)
provided a domestic infrastructure that afforded the
possibility of showering practices. However, as Hand
et al.37 point out, showers only become popular (‘stan-
dard’) items in UK homes from about the mid-1970s.
This delayed adoption may be explained in relation
to shifts in the social expectations and meanings
around cleanliness, self-care, and bodily maintenance.
In addition, Hand et al.37 argue that the capacity of
showering to capture willing (habitual) carriers can
be linked to its ability to help people ‘cope with, and
manage, the temporal challenges of (late-) modern
life’ (p. 12); while showering has afforded the material
possibility of a speedy bodily cleansing habit since the
1950s, this has only come to be socially understand-
able as a practical benefit by virtue of more recent
procedural concerns relating to ‘time squeeze’.44
In addition to understanding the constitutive
elements of habitual water or energy-use practices,
social practice researchers also stress that habits
are maintained by ‘communities of practice’. These
‘communities’ are not defined by shared geographic
Volume 6, January/February 2015 © 2014 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Habitual behaviors or patterns of practice?
proximity, but rather by shared participation in identi-
fied practices.45 Hitching’s45 work on practices related
to thermal comfort in the workplace shows how the
existence of shared communities of practice can work
to produce, and reproduce, particular habits that have
implications for levels of consumption of resources
(e.g., energy). Hitching45 uses the example of the
clothing habits of lawyers working in the City of
London to show how non-seasonal habitual practices
around choices of ‘professional’ clothing (e.g., suit and
tie by men) in the workplace are intrinsically tied to
the material provision of energy-intensive cooling of
office spaces in summer months.
Habitual Waste Management and Recycling
Psychological Approaches
Most psychological evidence around the habitual
nature of waste disposal and recycling behavior
stems from prediction studies seeking to quantify
the contribution of habit to behavior patterns.6,46,47
Most studies have used past behavior as a mea-
sure of habit,6,46 but from a psychological perspec-
tive, behavioral frequency fails to discern habitual
from non-habitual repetition.21 These studies have,
however, illustrated the consistency of waste manage-
ment behavior over time. For example, Terry et al.6
found that the self-reported proportion of household
waste recycled over the previous 3 months correlated
strongly with the proportion recycled over the follow-
ing fortnight, suggesting highly stable and repetitive
recycling patterns.
Psychologists have argued that because
waste disposal decisions are made in unchanging
situations—e.g., at home, the day before the kerbside
recycling bin is collected—repetition is likely to lead
to habit formation, and so behavioral frequency will
provide an adequate index of recycling habit.25,27,47,48
Correlational studies suggest that where recycling is
habitual it is less determined by deliberation and more
by unconscious activation.20 This is supported by an
intervention study in which cameras were placed in
the lid of household refuse bins and footage shared
with household members.49 Participants reported that
they disposed of less waste and recycled more because
they became aware of their waste disposal decisions,
rather than because their attitudes or intentions
changed. This suggests that the intervention changed
behavior by disrupting habitual waste disposal pat-
terns. One study found that not having a habit for
recycling was negatively correlated with recycling
behavior.48 The authors interpreted this as evidence
of a waste disposal habit, and suggested that habitual
waste disposal may preclude recycling and formation
of recycling habits.
117
 Advanced Review
Social Practice Approaches
Although there are surprisingly few social practice
analyses of domestic waste management, a growing
literature has examined social practices surrounding
paper use and disposal within the workplace.50,51 One
ethnographic study examined the practices associated
with the use of paper within a university adminis-
tration office environment.51 Paper-related practices
that participants were in the ‘habit’ of enacting were
found to be vastly more nuanced and creative than
the general categories of ‘printing’, ‘copying’, ‘writ-
ing’ or ‘reading’ that one might expect to emerge
from such an analysis. Rather, paper was shown to
both support and bridge a myriad of particular work-
ing practices in a way not easily replaced by a (less
resource intensive) shift toward digitization. Examples
included ‘social coordination practices’ performed by
hand-outs in meetings, ‘remembering practices’ per-
formed by post-it notes or hardcopy ‘to do’ lists,
‘sketching practices’ used to facilitate creation of new
ideas, and ‘verifying practices’ enabled by carrying
original documents to meetings. This work highlights
the importance of understanding the dynamics of
habitually reproduced practices and the ways in which
specific practices are entwined with other circulating
elements. To say that workers in this study were sim-
ply in possession of ‘a habit’ for using paper to print,
copy, write, and read would miss important aspects of
the practices involved that may be crucial for under-
standing future attempts to encourage a workplace
shift from paper to digitization.51
Similar conclusions were drawn from a 9-month
participant observation of an attempt by a team
of Environmental Champions within a construction
company to change waste disposal practices by remov-
ing under-desk bins in offices.50 Despite the Cham-
pions being highly committed and operating in an
ostensibly (‘attitudinally’) supportive organizational
context, the program was eventually abandoned.
Hargreaves50 shows how these attempts to directly
manipulate practice brought into sharp focus the
relationships between under-desk waste disposal and
other practices (e.g., waste removal by contracted
cleaners), professional and normative standards (e.g.,
privacy), local regulations (e.g., health and safety), and
even social interactions (with one employee question-
ing whether it was appropriate for a high-profile client
to be asked to walk down the corridor to dispose of a
dirty tissue).
Habitual Food Consumption
Psychological Approaches
Most studies of ‘habitual’ food choices have been con-
ducted by health psychologists seeking to understand
118 © 2014 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
wires.wiley.com/climatechange
how to replace ‘habitually’ consumed unhealthy foods
with healthier alternatives.52 This work provides com-
pelling evidence also relevant to efforts to reduce food
wastage, limit resource-intensive food consumption,
and promote environmentally friendly alternatives.
Studies have suggested that, in line with habit the-
ory, eating a (type of) food daily in response to sta-
ble contextual cues leads to subsequent consumption
of the food being experienced as automatic and
effortless.11,53 One study found that, among volun-
teers eating a healthy food daily for 12 weeks, repe-
tition strengthened self-reported habit such that rapid
early gains in habit strength reduced until a peak was
reached at an average of 65 days after initiation.12
However, considerable variation was observed in time
required for habit to peak (35–106 days).
Behavior prediction studies have mostly sup-
ported theoretical predictions regarding the relation-
ship between habit and food choices: a meta-analysis
of 13 studies found that SRHI scores for eating specific
foods were moderately-to-strongly correlated with the
consumed volume of those foods.15 A review showed
that, in seven of eight tests of the hypothesized inter-
action between habit and intention, the relationship
between intentions and dietary choices was weaker
where habit scores were higher.14 Such work has
prompted calls for dietary interventions to identify
and break the context–behavior associations that may
sustain food consumption patterns.52 For example,
helping dieters plan if-then responses to predictable
future contexts can double weight loss over 2-month
period,54 presumably by reducing food intake.
Social Practice Approaches
Social practice approaches to habitual food con-
sumption focus on the practical, routinized,
conventional, and collective aspects of food con-
sumption activities.55–57 Halkier57 suggests two ways
that relationships between food consumption habits
and environmental challenges might be potentially
conceptualized from a social practice perspective. On
the one hand, environmentally friendly consumption
can be seen as part of various habitual food practices.
Food practices vary in relation to their implications
for energy used in transportation, sustainability of
packaging, or the level of pesticides used in produc-
tion. For instance, the common UK practice of eating
a roast dinner on a Sunday can be enacted in both
more and less resource-intensive ways—British versus
New Zealand Lamb, loose local organic beans versus
plastic-wrapped pesticide-sprayed Peruvian beans,
and so on. Alternatively, ‘environmentalized’ food
practices can be seen as distinct practices in their own
right. For instance, given that practitioners themselves
Volume 6, January/February 2015
 WIREs Climate Change
may speak of ‘turning vegetarian’ (even ‘being vege-
tarian’), it may make more sense in some instances
to think of activities like ‘vegetarian cooking’ as a
habitual social practice in their own right. In other
instances, however, cooking might be viewed as a
social practice, the habitual performance of which
can vary in relation to the amounts of vegetable versus
plant matter involved.
Halkier57 provides examples of possibilities for
change created by adopting either of these two
approaches. In the case of ‘environmental impact as
part of food practice’, Halkier argues for a delineation
of food practices into four types—improvization to
achieve pleasure, pursuit of health, pursuit of orga-
nization and order, and achievement of a necessary
chore. She suggests that food practices of the first
three types could all incorporate various elements
of environmentally friendly consumption (such as
local, seasonal produce) into existing habitual rou-
tines. However, the understandings, procedures, or
modes of engagement that sustain habitual food prac-
tices centered on the necessity to ‘have something to
eat’ do not easily invite the incorporation of more sus-
tainable forms of consumption. An analysis of envi-
ronmentalized food practices as entities in their own
right argues that the success of local vegetable box
schemes has been underpinned by a reframing of ‘per-
sonal choice’ as time-consuming and burdensome.58
The meaning of ‘convenience’ is reframed within the
new practices through a redefinition of local seasonal
availability as ‘convenient’, in that the consumer no
longer has to expend so much time and effort deciding
what to purchase or cook in a given week or month.
Habits of Transportation
Psychological Approaches
Most psychological research on environmentally
relevant habits has focused on car use. A particular
focus has been commuting, which is likely to become
habitual due to being undertaken at the same time
each work day with little prior planning.59 Studies
have shown habit to be strongly predictive of car,
bicycle, and public transport commuting.60,61 Exper-
imental tests have also demonstrated characteristics
of habit in travel mode decisions. One study reported
a series of experiments exploring travel mode deci-
sions in hypothetical journey scenarios.7 Bicycle and
car users with stronger travel mode habits paid less
attention to information on the utility of available
options (e.g., travel time), and situational require-
ments (e.g., weather conditions), before choosing
their usual mode. The authors concluded that, among
those with strong travel habits, the need to make a
Volume 6, January/February 2015 © 2014 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Habitual behaviors or patterns of practice?
journey automatically activates the habitually chosen
option, bypassing conscious deliberation. A study
of household car use found that intentions to drive
only predicted car-use patterns over an ensuing 7-day
period where habit was weak, but among drivers
with strong habits, conscious intentions had no rela-
tionship with car use.62 This confirms theoretical
predictions that habits may dominate over intentions
in regulating transport choices.20,59 Consequently,
while cognitive antecedents of planned behavior can
predict car and public transport commuting they
may not be optimal car-use-reduction intervention
targets.61,63 Increasing knowledge by providing infor-
mation, or changing attitudes by highlighting the
advantages of public transport,64 may not result in
behavior change because habitual car commuting
may outlive motivational shifts.20
A psychological analysis of commuting mode
choice as environmentally cued recommends interven-
tions that disrupt contexts that activate car-use habits,
or make alternative transport modes more salient and
attractive. Studies exploring externally induced breaks
in daily routines testify to the context-dependent
nature of travel mode choices, as well as the poten-
tial for context change for disrupting such behav-
ior patterns.65 For example, Bamberg66 found that
residential relocation provided a good opportunity
to change travel-mode choices, suggesting that those
moving into new homes may be a prime target
for car-reduction interventions. This supports the
assumption that the individual will be more recep-
tive to information on alternatives when ingrained
habitual responses are broken. However, a review of
the effectiveness of interventions to reduce car use
found surprisingly few rigorously evaluated, effective
interventions.67
Social Practice Approaches
A social practice approach to promoting environ-
mentally sustainable transport focuses not on how
individuals make daily travel decisions or how they
might be influenced by ingrained behavioral habits,
but rather, on the practices in which people par-
ticipate that result in or implicate various forms
of travel. As Hui68 argues, journeys and destina-
tions are not arbitrary—they must be understood as
‘outcomes of the specific ordering and organisation
of practices’ (p. 90). Consequently, bringing about
less carbon-intensive patterns of mobility requires an
understanding of both the elements of a transporta-
tion practice itself (e.g., cycling and driving), and also
other practices with which these transportation acts
are intrinsically linked. Such other practices are not
always obvious. For example, Hui68 demonstrates the
119
 Advanced Review
ways in which the global proliferation of the practice
of Ashtanga Yoga from the 1970s has led to a bur-
geoning market for long-distance travel for its many
recruits to visit various yoga gurus in India. Thus, one
habitually practiced activity with minimal environ-
mental impact (yoga) has become bound to an osten-
sibly unrelated practice (greater air travel), incurring
high levels of transport-related energy use.
Different transportation practices, such as driv-
ing and cycling, can also be thought of as being in
competition with one another in that they compete
for practitioners’ time, space on roads, and money.
As Watson69 points out, the major investment in a
(rapidly depreciating) car is likely to facilitate its habit-
ual use even when cycling might be an obvious and
viable alternative. Driving and cycling also compete
in relation to discursive and symbolic status, such
as in relation to notions of ‘safety’, ‘health’, and
‘convenience’.
TWO MODELS FOR BRINGING
ABOUT CHANGE
The theoretical distinctions between the social psycho-
logical and social practice approaches generate differ-
ent suggestions for the sites for potential intervention.
In this section, we explore the implications for models
of intervention that each approach entails, to highlight
what environmental policy makers and practitioners
might derive from these theoretical discussions.
Psychological Approaches to Change
From a psychological perspective, changing envi-
ronmentally relevant habitual behavior involves
modifying the responses of the individual. Social psy-
chologists argue that interventions highlighting the
pros and cons of the desired behaviors may be ineffec-
tive in changing habitual behavior, for two reasons.
Strong habits typically lead to a narrowing of atten-
tion toward the habitual option, and so people who
habitually choose an environmentally detrimental
option will fail to notice or show interest in informa-
tion about environmentally friendly alternatives.7 In
addition, if individuals are not acting deliberatively,
changing perceptions and attitudes will be unlikely
to change behavior.62,70 The psychologist’s three ‘pil-
lars’ of habit—repetition, automaticity, and context
stability—generate recommendations and techniques
for behavior change beyond attitudinal change.
Repetition. Habit theory in psychology is rooted
in the behaviorist school23 and its notion that rep-
etition of behavior is contingent on the reward and
punishment schemes surrounding the behavior. This
120 © 2014 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
wires.wiley.com/climatechange
perspective proposes that imposing penalties on habit-
ual resource-intensive behaviors, and offering rewards
for less intensive alternatives, should modify the
attractiveness of the behaviors to the individual, so
changing habitual behavior patterns. For example,
provision of free public transport passes for drivers
has had mixed results but may provide a useful
incentive for some habitual drivers.71 Moreover, the
experience of using alternatives can undermine erro-
neous negative beliefs about public transport alterna-
tives. Providing incentives or disincentives may disrupt
habitual behaviors with tangible consequences, but
not all environmentally relevant habits can be finan-
cially rewarded or punished. In addition, financial
instruments may be of limited effectiveness or political
feasibility. They may also have adverse consequences,
such as direct and indirect ‘rebound’ effects, whereby
energy savings in one area are offset by increased con-
sumption of alternative energy-intensive options.72
Automaticity. For the psychologist, overrid-
ing learned automatic cue-response contingencies is
required to change habits. This draws on finite cogni-
tive resources—e.g., attention and planning—so that,
when faced with multiple everyday decisions, indi-
viduals often lapse into old habits. Psychologists
recommend making if-then plans (or ‘implementation
intentions’), specifying where, when, and how exactly
a particular action or set of actions needs to be enacted
in order to change habitual responses to particular
contexts.73 These plans create a mental connection
between the behavioral context and the action, so
preparing the individual for appropriate action at the
chosen time and place. Furnishing a goal intention
(e.g., ‘I intend to use the recycling bin’) with an imple-
mentation intention (e.g., ‘If I finish reading my news-
paper, then I will put it in the recycling bin’) has been
found to be effective in various domains.74 Implemen-
tation intentions are particularly relevant for chang-
ing habits because the cues and responses that define
a particular habitual behavior pattern may become
the very cues and responses of an implementation
intention.18 In this way, alternative behavioral options
(using the recycling bin) may be programmed into
memory so that conflicting habits (using the regular
waste disposal bin) are overridden. Studies have sup-
ported the effectiveness of implementation intentions
in increasing recycling73 and purchasing sustainable
food products.75
Implementation intentions illustrate an
approach that seeks to frustrate habitual responses
by making alternative actions more salient in rel-
evant contexts. Other forms of intervention have
the potential to break habits by disrupting uncon-
scious cognitive processes, and instead prompting
Volume 6, January/February 2015
 WIREs Climate Change
deliberative behavior. For example, car clubs that
provide cars parked at various locations for members’
use when needed offer a promising approach to reduc-
ing car-use habits because, as well as saving costs of
city driving, the need to book ahead ensures that car
use becomes a planned and evaluated contingent city
travel solution.76 The difficulty lies in making car
clubs sufficiently appealing to shift habitual drivers’
motivations. The cognitive foundations of drivers’
motivations, for example, are likely to extend beyond
utilitarian concerns about travel cost and journey time
and include anticipated affective responses to journey
experience, personal space and feelings of autonomy
and identity consequences.77 Breaking habits requires
not only that the automatic response is blocked but
also that the individual is willing to choose alternative
options.11
Context stability. Psychological approaches
regard habits as context-dependent, such that, when
an individual no longer encounters a given context,
enactment of the habitual behavior associated with
these contexts will be discontinued.65 This ‘habit dis-
continuity hypothesis’65 suggests that existing ‘bad’
habits will be undermined by disrupting the stable
contexts that prompt them, thus forcing the individ-
ual to think about and adopt alternative actions. For
instance, in the domain of traffic safety, the concept of
‘controlled chaos’ involves removing road signs and
mixing motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians in a way
that forces people to abandon speeding habits and to
pay increased attention to the upcoming feature of
the road environment.78
Intervention developers, or individuals them-
selves, can modify everyday environments to dis-
rupt habitual actions or facilitate alternatives.38 For
example, making locally sourced produce easier to
reach in the supermarket may increase the like-
lihood that it will be chosen from an array of
alternative options,79 and using a smaller plate can
reduce the quantity of food self-served, so lim-
iting food waste.80 Situations that elicit habitual
resource-intensive behaviors may be anticipated and
avoided, e.g., working at home removes opportuni-
ties for habitual car commuting and can yield energy
savings.81 However, opportunities to (re-)design the
more macro-level contexts that prompt environmen-
tally relevant behaviors are often scarce. In such
instances, interventions may instead capitalize on
naturally occurring context disruptions.65,82–84 Ver-
planken and Roy83 found that an intervention to
promote a range of sustainable behaviors was more
effective when delivered to people who recently moved
house compared with a matched group who had not
moved house and a no-intervention control group,
Volume 6, January/February 2015 © 2014 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Habitual behaviors or patterns of practice?
while controlling for known determinants of sustain-
able behavior. Context disruptions are thought to
break habits and instead prompt action in line with
conscious and deliberative intentions. Interventions
designed to change attitudes, values, and norms may
therefore have impact during the ‘window of opportu-
nity’ afforded by a habit-disrupting context change.66
Context disruption may also change beliefs; natural
road closures, for example, have been shown to under-
mine overestimation of public transport journey times
among habitual car commuters,85 suggesting it may
have potential as a structural policy instrument to
change commuting habits.86
Upstream Interventions
Moving individuals away from existing unsustainable
habits can be considered as ‘fixing problems down-
stream’, i.e., tackling the symptoms of a broader
problem, rather than its root causes. Somewhat in
line with the social practice perspective, psycholo-
gists recognize that habits and the contexts that elicit
them are embedded in larger structures of social prac-
tices as well as wider regulatory and cultural frame-
works. Downstream interventions may be costly and
cumbersome, and may be rendered ineffective where
larger structures are not conducive to the new behav-
iors. In such instances, ‘upstream’ interventions that
address these structures should be considered, such
as legislation, large-scale infrastructural changes, or
technological innovations.21 Population-level behav-
ior change has been accomplished by upstream inter-
ventions such as mandatory seat belt usage, conges-
tion taxes, and smoking bans. Some researchers from
the social practice tradition34 have been critical of
psychologists’ assumption that lessons might transfer
from other such contexts to environmental behavior,
on the grounds that the processes that produce and
sustain specific practices are historically and culturally
specific and reflect particular combinations of mean-
ing, materiality, and competence. However, psychol-
ogists would argue that although the particular ele-
ments (‘content’) that make up seat-belt-wearing prac-
tice differ from those that combine in the domain of
sustainable transportation, lessons relating to the pro-
cess of intervention may nonetheless be transferable
between domains.
While there may at first be resistance to many
upstream measures, they have, surprisingly, usually
enjoyed wide acceptance by the population following
their implementation, often even among those directly
affected. The plastic bag levy in Ireland, for example,
has proved popular among shoppers.87 Whereas
the classical psychological model portrays behavior
change as the result of changing attitudes, values, or
121
 Advanced Review
norms, upstream interventions start with behavior
change, and attitude, norm, and value changes follow.
Social Practice Approaches to Change
From a social practice perspective, the social and insti-
tutional ‘content’ of the enactments of practices (i.e.,
material, procedural, and social elements) is crucial in
the formation and maintenance of routine practices.
Practices, rather than the behavior of individuals, are
the entry point for intervention and policy making.55
Shove31 argues that when thinking of practices as per-
formances, habits break when groups of devoted prac-
titioners who were previously committed to carrying
a practice persistently fail to collectively re-enact it.
From a practices-as-entities perspective, the loss of
its habit-demanding status does not necessarily end a
practice, but rather implies a repositioning of it in the
temporal ordering of daily life or its relation to other
practices. For example, Shove36 has documented shifts
away from clothes laundering (washing, drying, iron-
ing, folding) as activities that traditionally involved a
focused effort on a dedicated day each week, toward
contemporary incarnations of laundering practice that
are spread throughout the week and now involve dif-
ferent material and procedural elements (e.g., use of
automated washing machines, squeezed between other
domestic duties and recreational activities), yet may
remain ‘habitual’.
Consequently, the first step toward intervention
from a social practice perspective becomes a mapping
of the elements that currently circulate to allow partic-
ular practices to successfully recruit their carriers. As
Shove88 suggests, the aim is to understand the ‘trajec-
tories and careers’ (p. 5) of practices that vary in their
level of resource intensity. The role of policy becomes
an attempt to bring about lasting transformation (or
transitions) in relation to normative understandings
of what constitutes a normal or appropriate way
of life. Such a task is seen as achievable by way of
reconfiguring the elements of practice, relationships
between practices, and the patterns of recruitment
and defection.
Shove and colleagues31,34,88 suggest three pri-
mary routes that might be considered to achieve such
an aim. Firstly, for habit-demanding practices to retain
this status, their composite elements must be read-
ily available. Thus, policy makers could strive to
reconfigure practice elements such that less sustainable
elements (meat, Westernization, convenience, compe-
tence in long-distance travel) become systematically
less prominent and alternative, more sustainable, ele-
ments are promoted.
Secondly, social practice theorists highlight the
importance of understanding how a practice exists
122 © 2014 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
wires.wiley.com/climatechange
in dynamic relation to other practices. For example,
it is suggested that promoting cycling requires an
understanding of the ways in which the relationships
between cycling and driving have evolved over time
in a particular society, and the extent to which links
between cycling and other aspects of mobility have
been severed, or lie dormant. Thus, a practice orien-
tation encourages policy makers to consider whether
one might seek to influence one practice by targeting
adjacent practices. For example, as we have noted,
psychologists view car clubs as a means to break
habits by disrupting unconscious cognitive processes
surrounding travel choice, and suggest that encourag-
ing car club use requires shifting drivers’ motivations
toward using a car club vehicle. Social practice theo-
rists, however, would argue that promoting participa-
tion in a car club requires an understanding of the ele-
ments that determine car club membership’s ability to
recruit willing practitioners, as well as understanding
how car club membership might be intrinsically con-
nected to other practices (e.g., doing a large, weekly
grocery shop). Psychologists might counter-argue that
this is adequately explained by the psychological
notion of ‘spill-over’, whereby participation in one
form of pro-environmental behavior spills over into
another, due to common underlying cognitions.89
However, the ‘spill-over’ concept fails to fully recog-
nize the social practice argument that environmentally
(un)sustainable practices (e.g., car use) are often inter-
woven with and co-dependent on ostensibly unrelated
practices (e.g., food consumption). Adjacent practices
might feasibly be targeted in attempts to bring about
shifts in the practice in question.
Finally, policy makers might seek to reconfigure
social connections and networks through which prac-
tices circulate and develop. As Shove et al.34 argue,
these connections should be thought of not simply in
terms of pre-existing sets of geographic or social net-
works that might be ‘used’ to foster more sustainable
practices through linear processes of social diffusion.
Rather, they must be understood in terms of the devel-
opment of communities of practice that might ‘emerge
from and enable the recurrent enactment of lower
impact ways of life’ (p. 160). Examples of such ‘com-
munities of practice’ might include groups of cyclists
in a workplace sharing tips to make their commutes
safer, more efficient and enjoyable, or participants in a
local organic vegetable box scheme exchanging recipes
according to which produce is plentiful each month.
This tripartite call to action may appear to
involve ‘heavy-handed’ governance, but this is not nec-
essarily the case. For example, the Japanese govern-
ment’s Cool Biz initiative, designed in partnership with
the fashion industry, achieved drastic reductions in
Volume 6, January/February 2015
 WIREs Climate Change
office air conditioning use via the systematic creation
of markets for cooler business clothing (especially
for men) through a reconfiguration of shared under-
standings of the social meanings attached to partic-
ular forms of dress. Resulting changes in collective
habitual clothing practice in summer months saved
an estimated 1.4 million tonnes of carbon emissions
across Japan (Team-6 Committee and Ministry of the
Environment (Japan), cited by Shove et al.34 ). Other
intervention programs interpreted by social practice
theorists in terms of elements of practice include mas-
sive investments in the Bus Rapid Transit system and
cyclepath networks in Bogota (Columbia), the tar-
geting of newly arrived community members with
free bus passes by the Centre Area Transportation
Authority (CATA) in Pennsylvania (USA), the Barclays
Cycle Hire scheme in London (UK), and the New
Nordic Diet program in Denmark (see Evans et al.55
for details of each).
Although such examples provide some support
for the social practice perspective on change, none of
these programs drew explicitly upon social practice
theory in their formulation. The direct translation of
social practice theory into actual interventions remains
somewhat a work-in-progress. Initial attempts have
been made to develop ‘element mapping’ tools for
policy makers, a work-shopped example of which
is reported by Darnton and colleagues90 in relation
to the practice of line-drying versus tumble drying
clothes. However, this approach still lacks a set of
directly applicable models for intervention. Social
practice theorists might argue that this stems from a
theoretical orientation to change as one of ‘emergence’
rather than direct causality. While psychological
approaches position the intervention developer as an
agent of change that exerts influence upon a system
from which they are personally disconnected, for
social practice theorists, any attempt to ‘intervene’ in
the social system must necessarily be done by actors
who are themselves a part of that system. It might be
suggested, for example, that the Japanese government
effected change as part of the Cool Biz initiative only
through establishing connections between the state
and crucial actors in the fashion industry and celebrity
culture.
SHOULD POLICY TARGET HABITUAL
BEHAVIORS OR ELEMENTS
OF PRACTICE?
Social practice theorists have tended to portray the
theoretical and empirical focus of the social psycho-
logical approach to behavior change as solely con-
cerned with the individual cognitions of autonomous
Volume 6, January/February 2015 © 2014 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Habitual behaviors or patterns of practice?
agents, either in terms of deliberative processes or
automated processes of habit formation.91 Such a
caricatured depiction of social psychology ignores
that many of the steps taken in designing several
successful intervention programs lauded by social
practice theorists are arguably rooted in social psy-
chological theory and evidence. We would argue
that the precise mechanisms of change involved in
interventions concordant with the social practice
approach largely concur with the social psychological
perspective.
For example, the use of celebrities to ‘model’ new
practices in ways that reconfigure their social mean-
ing (such as in the Japanese Cool Biz program) can be
seen as emerging from a long theoretical and empirical
tradition of social learning in psychology.92 Many ele-
ments of the Cool Biz program also concur with social
psychological theories of social influence, predicated
on the importance of descriptive and injunctive social
norms.93,94 Similarly, targeting newly arrived commu-
nity members with free bus passes to increase ridership
has been cited as an example of social practice theory
in action,55 but also concurs with interventions based
on the habit discontinuity hypothesis.83 The practical
intervention implications of both perspectives likely
appear similar to policymakers.
This is not to argue that the theoretical and
epistemological tensions and distinctions between psy-
chological and social practice analyses of habitu-
ally (re)produced actions are unimportant. Indeed,
the focus of the social practice approach on the
co-dependence of ostensibly unrelated practices opens
up some real, and different, possible alternatives for
intervention. It is, however, perhaps at the intersec-
tions between theoretical approaches that the most
novel and important policy intervention implications
are likely to be found. The traditionally more indi-
vidualistic approaches of social psychology can ben-
efit from engagement with the more social models
of social practice theory in which individual prac-
tices are inseparable from the material, procedu-
ral, and social structures that constitute them and
the other practices to which they connect. This
can helpfully focus attention on the role of pol-
icy and legislation in changing context rather than
the role of persuasive communication in changing
beliefs and attitudes. Notably, some strands of social
psychological theorizing have emerged that emphasize
the importance of understanding environmentally rel-
evant activities and policies in terms of socially (par-
ticularly discursively) constructed meanings.95–99 In
addition, in line with social practice theorists’ empha-
sis on the interlinked nature of behaviors, some social
psychological research has recognized that habitual
123
 Advanced Review
behaviors that might at first glance seem unrelated can
cluster together.100
Social practice theory provides an appealing the-
oretical model of how practices evolve, are main-
tained, and might potentially change. However, its
operationalization into policy remains not yet mate-
rial. Lessons can be learned from social psychology
without requiring abandonment of the specific theo-
retical commitments that social practice theory entails.
Social practice theorists have borrowed ideas from sci-
ence and technology studies in theorizing around the
role of material elements in the formation and circu-
lation of social practice.101–103 A deeper and more
wide-ranging engagement with the diverse theoreti-
cal, empirical, and epistemological approaches that
constitute contemporary social psychological theory
might offer similarly useful ‘borrowings’ for both
the theorizing and changing of the social meanings
of practices. It should be noted, however, that it
might well be the more discourse analytic traditions
in social psychology that social practice theorists feel
more comfortable with, due to them having more
epistemological common ground relative to more cog-
nitivist traditions (Box 1 and Table 1).
BOX 1
CHANGING BEHAVIOR OR CHANGING
PRACTICE?
Shove, Pantzar and Watson34 have suggested
that approaches to change focussed on behavior
and practice, respectively, can be distinguished in
terms of their basis for action, their theorizing
of change, their positioning of policy in that
process, and the ways in which transferrable
lessons can be gleaned from past performance.
CONCLUSION
There is compelling evidence for the utility of the-
orizing climate mitigation behaviors in terms of the
TABLE 1 Behavior and Practice (Reprinted with Permission from
Ref 34, p. 143. Copyright 2012 Sage)
Theories of Behavior Theories of Practice
Basis of action Individual choice Shared, social convention
Processes of change Causal Emergent
Positioning of policy External influence on Embedded in the systems
the factors and of practice it seeks to
drivers of behavior influence
Transferable lessons Clear: based on Limited by historical,
universal laws cultural specificity
124 © 2014 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
wires.wiley.com/climatechange
habitual and routine aspects of daily life, rather than
as the outcome of deliberative thought. Both the social
psychological literature around ‘habits’ as impulsive,
cue-driven behaviors, and the sociological literature
around established social practices offer useful inter-
vention design insights. Growing empirical literatures
across both theoretical traditions speak to the impor-
tance of understanding habitual aspects of a range
of behavioral practices such as water and energy use,
food consumption, waste management, and modes of
transportation.
Our review generates research directions for
development of each side of the theoretical divide.
Firstly, while psychological research emphasizes the
importance of context in driving (un)sustainable
habitual behavior,9,12 the definition of ‘context’ has
been under-theorized, and is less well-specified within
the psychological literature than the social prac-
tice tradition. Psychological research into habitual
behavior might benefit from more nuanced theorizing
around the role of physical and social contexts, and
examining the role of context empirically in a way
that goes beyond the proposition that a stable ‘con-
text’ leads to the formation of particular cognitive
associations within individuals. Secondly, while the
social practice tradition has provided highly rich and
nuanced theorizing of the material, procedural, and
socio-discursive elements that combine to constitute
‘the habitual’, future research should focus on trans-
lating such understandings into the development of
new public policy programs. This will likely require
basic empirical research to produce data of a form
that can be successfully translated to policy. Such
work is underway,88,91 but this task arguably remains
far from complete. In fairness, however, although
the models and terminology from the psychological
literature have thus far been more able to infiltrate
policy discussions, it also remains to be seen whether
the ‘downstream’ household-level intervention pre-
scriptions that most often emerge from psychology
are able to effect change at a societal level, rather than
only within relatively small-scale controlled trials.
Psychological research may be better served by a
greater focus on ‘upstream’ interventions.
Although the social psychology and social
practice perspectives have been constructed in
recent debates as oppositional,91,104 theorists of
both traditions have called for integration of the
two approaches.105,106 We have highlighted key
points of tension and reconciliation between the
two traditions, and our treatment of the issue offers
progress toward productively bridging the two per-
spectives. We have shown that the theoretical and
epistemological tensions between the two fall into
Volume 6, January/February 2015
 WIREs Climate Change
less sharp relief when designing interventions and
making policy recommendations. Interventions that
incorporate elements of both theoretical perspectives
REFERENCES
1. Gardner GT, Stern PC. The short list: the most effec-
tive actions U.S. households can take to curb climate
change. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 2008, 50:
12–25.
2. US Energy Information Agency. Emissions of Green-
house Gases in the United States 2007. Publ No
DOE/EIA-0573, Table 5, p. 13. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Energy; 2008.
3. Webb TL, Sheeran P. Does changing behavioural
intentions engender behaviour change? A meta-
analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychol Bull
2006, 132:249–268.
4. Ronis DL, Yates JF, Kirscht JP. Attitudes, decisions,
and habits as determinants of repeated behavior. In:
Pratkanis AR, Breckler SJ, Greenwald AG, eds. Atti-
tude Structure and Function. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum;
1989, 213–239.
5. Carrus G, Passafaro P, Bonnes M. Emotions, habits
and rational choices in ecological behaviours: the case
of recycling and use of public transportation. J Environ
Psychol 2008, 28:51–62.
6. Terry DJ, Hogg MA, White KA. The theory of
planned behaviour: self-identity, social identity and
group norms. Br J Soc Psychol 1999, 38:225–244.
7. Verplanken B, Aarts H, van Knippenberg A. Habit,
information acquisition, and the process of mak-
ing travel mode choices. Eur J Soc Psychol 1997,
27:539–560.
8. Verplanken B. Old and new routes to sustainable
behaviour. In: Whitmarsh L, O’Neill S, Lorenzoni
I, eds. Engaging the Public with Climate Change.
London: Earthscan; 2010, 17–30.
9. Verplanken B, Aarts H. Habit, attitude, and planned
behaviour: is habit an empty construct or an interest-
ing case of goal-directed automaticity? Eur Rev Soc
Psychol 1999, 10:101–134.
10. Wood W, Neal DT. A new look at habits and the
habit-goal interface. Psychol Rev 2007, 114:843–863.
11. Lally P, Gardner B. Promoting habit formation.
Health Psychol Rev 2013, 7(Suppl 1):S137–S158.
doi: 10.1080/17437199.2011.603640.
12. Lally P, van Jaarsveld CHM, Potts HWW, Wardle J.
How are habits formed: modelling habit formation in
the real world. Eur J Soc Psychol 2010, 40:998–1009.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.674.
13. Tobias R. Changing behavior by memory aids: a social
psychological model of prospective memory and habit
Volume 6, January/February 2015 © 2014 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Habitual behaviors or patterns of practice?
may perhaps be most effective for breaking the
mundane habitual actions that threaten the global
climate.
development tested with dynamic field data. Psychol
Rev 2009, 116:408–438.
14. Gardner B. A review and analysis of the use of
‘habit’ in understanding, predicting and influencing
health-related behaviour. Health Psychol Rev 2014.
doi:10.1080/17437199.2013.876238. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/.
15. Gardner B, de Bruijn GJ, Lally P. A systematic
review and meta-analysis of applications of the
Self-Report Habit Index to nutrition and phys-
ical activity behaviours. Ann Behav Med 2011,
42:174–187.
16. Wood W, Quinn JM, Kashy DA. Habits in everyday
life: thought, emotion, and action. J Pers Soc Psychol
2002, 83:1281–1297.
17. Bargh JA. The four horsemen of automaticity: aware-
ness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cogni-
tion. In: Wyer RS, Srull TK, eds. Handbook of Social
Cognition: Vol. 1 Basic Processes. Hove: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates; 1994, 1–40.
18. Verplanken B. Habits and implementation intentions.
In: Kerr J, Weitkunat R, Moretti M, eds. The ABC of
Behavioural Change. Oxford: Elsevier; 2005, 99–109.
19. Strack F, Deutsch R. Reflective and impulsive determi-
nants of social behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2004,
8:220–247.
20. Triandis HC. Interpersonal Behavior. Monterey:
Brooks/Cole; 1977.
21. Verplanken B, Wood W. Interventions to break and
create consumer habits. J Public Policy Mark 2006,
25:90–103.
22. Moors A, de Houwer J. Automaticity: a theoretical and
conceptual analysis. Psychol Bull 2006, 132:297–326.
23. Hull CL. Principles of Behavior: An Introduction
To Behavior Theory. New York: Appleton-Century
Crofts; 1943.
24. Ajzen I. Residual effects of past on later behavior:
habituation and reasoned action perspectives. Pers Soc
Psychol Rev 2002, 6:107–122.
25. Ouellette JA, Wood W. Habit and intention in
everyday life: the multiple processes by which past
behavior predicts future behavior. Psychol Bull 1998,
124:54–74.
26. Verplanken B, Orbell S. Reflections on past behavior: a
self-report index of habit strength. J Appl Soc Psychol
2003, 33:1313–1330.
125
 Advanced Review
27. Klöckner CA, Oppedal IO. General vs domain spe-
cific recycling behaviour—Applying a multilevel com-
prehensive action determination model to recycling in
Norwegian student homes. Resour Conserv Recycling
2011, 55:453–471.
28. Bourdieu P. Outline of a Theory of Practice, vol. 16.
Cambridge: Cambridge University press; 1977.
29. Giddens A. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge:
Polity Press; 1984.
30. Allport FH. The influence of the group upon associa-
tion and thought. J Exp Psychol 1920, 3:159–182.
31. Shove E. Habits and their creatures. Collegium 2012,
12. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10138/34225.
32. Watson M. Building future systems of velomobility.
In: Shove E, Spurling N, eds. Sustainable Practices:
Social Theory and Climate Change. Oxford: Rout-
ledge; 2013, 117–131.
33. Reckwitz A. Toward a theory of social practices: a
development in culturalist theorizing. Eur J Soc Thoery
2002, 5:243–263.
34. Shove E, Pantzar M, Watson M. The Dynamics of
Social Practice: Everyday Life and How It Changes.
London: Sage; 2012.
35. Southerton D. Squeezing time: allocating practices,
co-ordinating networks and scheduling society. Time
Soc 2003, 12:5–25.
36. Shove E. Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience: The
Social Organisation of Normality. London: Berg;
2003.
37. Hand M, Shove E, Southerton D. Explaining shower-
ing: a discussion of the material, conventional and tem-
poral dimensions of practice. Sociol Res Online 2005,
10. Available at: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/
hand.html.
38. Quinn JM, Pascoe A, Wood W, Neal DT. Can’t control
yourself? Monitor those bad habits. Pers Soc Psychol
Bull 2010, 36:499–511.
39. Schatzki T. The Site of the Social: A Philosophical
Account of the Constitution of Social Life and Change.
University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University
Press; 2002.
40. Dahlstrand U, Biel A. Pro-environmental habits:
propensity levels in behavioral change. J Appl Soc
Psychol 1997, 27:588–601.
41. Gregory GD, Di Leo M. Repeated behavior and
environmental psychology: the role of personal
involvement and habit formation in explaining
water consumption. J Appl Soc Psychol 2003,
33:1261–1296.
42. de Vries P, Aarts H, Midden CJH. Changing sim-
ple energy-related consumer behaviors: how the
enactment of intentions is thwarted by acting and
non-acting habits. Environ Behav 2011, 43:612–633.
43. Allon F, Sofoulis Z. Everyday water: cultures in tran-
sition. Aust Geogr 2006, 37:45–55.
126 © 2014 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
wires.wiley.com/climatechange
44. DEMOS. The Time Squeeze. London: Demos; 1995.
45. Hitchings R. Sharing conventions: communities of
practice and thermal comfort. In: Shove E, Spurling N,
eds. Sustainable Practices: Social Theory and Climate
Change. Oxford: Routledge; 2013, 103–114.
46. Cheung SF, Chan DK-S, Wong ZS-Y. Reexamining the
theory of planned behavior in understanding wastepa-
per recycling. Environ Behav 1999, 31:587–612.
47. Ittiravivongs A. Recycling as habitual behavior: the
impact of habit on household waste recycling behavior
in Thailand. Asian Soc Sci 2012, 8:74–81.
48. Knussen C, Yule F. ‘I’m not in the habit of recycling’:
the role of habitual behavior in the disposal of house-
hold waste. Environ Behav 2008, 40:683–702.
49. Comber R, Thieme A. Designing beyond habit: open-
ing space for improved recycling and food waste
behaviors through processes of persuasion, social
influence and aversive affect. Pers Ubiquit Comput
2013, 17:1197–1210.
50. Hargreaves T. Practice-ing behaviour change: applying
social practice theory to pro-environmental behaviour
change. J Consum Cult 2011, 11:79–99.
51. Yli-Kaulahvoma S, Pantzar M, Toyoki S. Mundane
materials at work: paper in practice. In: Shove E, Spurl-
ing N, eds. Sustainable Practices: Social Theory and
Climate Change. Oxford: Routledge; 2012, 69–86.
52. van t’Riet J, Sijtsema SJ, Dagevos H, de Bruijn G-J. The
importance of habits in eating behaviour. An overview
and recommendations for future research. Appetite
2011, 57:585–596.
53. Lally P, Wardle J, Gardner B. Experiences of habit
formation: a qualitative study. Psychol Health Med
2011, 16:484–489.
54. Luszczynska A, Sobczyk A, Abraham C. Planning
to lose weight: RCT of an implementation inten-
tion prompt to enhance weight reduction among
overweight and obese women. Health Psychol 2007,
26:507–512.
55. Evans D, McMeekin A, Southerton D. Sustainable
consumption, behaviour change policies and theo-
ries of practice. Collegium 2012, 12 Available at:
http://hdl.handle.net/10138/34226.
56. Warde A. What sort of practice is eating? In: Shove
E, Spurling N, eds. Sustainable Practices: Social The-
ory and Climate Change. Oxford: Routledge; 2013,
17–30.
57. Halkier B. A practice theoretical perspective on
everyday dealings with environmental challenges of
food consumption. Anthropol Food. Available at:
http://aof.revues.org/6405 2009.
58. Sahakian M, Wihite H. Making practice theory prac-
ticable: towards more sustainable forms of consump-
tion. J Consumer Cult 2014, 14:25–44.
59. Aarts H, Verplanken B, van Knippenberg A. Predicting
behavior from actions in the past: repeated decision
Volume 6, January/February 2015
 WIREs Climate Change
making or a matter of habit? J Appl Soc Psychol 1998,
28:1355–1374.
60. Gardner B. Modelling motivation and habit in sta-
ble travel mode contexts. Transport Res F 2009,
12:68–76.
61. Gardner B, Abraham C. Psychological correlates of
car use: a meta-analysis. Transport Res F 2008, 11:
300–311.
62. Verplanken B, Aarts H, van Knippenberg A, Moonen
A. Habit versus planned behaviour: a field experiment.
Br J Soc Psychol 1998, 37:111–128.
63. Mann E, Abraham C. Identifying beliefs and cogni-
tions underpinning commuters’ travel mode choices.
J Appl Soc Psychol 2012, 42:2730–2757.
64. Abraham C, Michie S. A taxonomy of behavior change
techniques used in interventions. Health Psychol 2008,
27:379–387.
65. Verplanken B, Walker I, Davis A, Jurasek M. Context
change and travel mode choice: combing the habit
discontinuity and self-activation hypotheses. J Environ
Psychol 2008, 28:121–127.
66. Bamberg S. Is a residential relocation a good opportu-
nity to change people’s travel behavior? Results from
a theory-driven intervention study. Environ Behav
2006, 38:820–840.
67. Graham Rowe E, Skippon S, Gardner B, Abraham
C. Can we reduce car use and, if so, how? A
review of available evidence. Transport Res A 2011,
45:401–418.
68. Hui A. Practices, movement and circulation: impli-
cations for sustainability. In: Shove E, Spurling N,
eds. Sustainable Practices: Social Theory and Climate
Change. Oxford: Routledge; 2013, 89–102.
69. Watson M. How theories of practice can inform tran-
sition to a decarbonised transport system. J Transport
Geogr 2012, 24:488–496.
70. Kraus SJ. Attitudes and the prediction of behavior:
a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Pers Soc
Psychol Bull 1995, 21:58–75.
71. Fujii S, Kitamura R. What does a one-month free bus
ticket do to habitual drivers? Transportation 2003,
30:81–95.
72. Chitnis M, Sorrell S, Druckman A, Firth SK, Jackson
T. Turning lights into flights: estimating direct and
indirect rebound effects for UK households. Energy
Policy 2013, 55:234–250.
73. Holland RW, Aarts H, Langendam D. Break-
ing and creating habits on the working floor: a
field-experiment on the power of implementation
intentions. J Exp Soc Psychol 2006, 42:776–783.
74. Gollwitzer PM, Sheeran P. Implementation intentions
and goal achievement: a meta-analysis of effects and
processes. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 2006, 38:69–119.
75. Fennis BM, Adriaanse MA, Stroebe W, Pol B. Bridging
the intention-behavior gap: inducing implementation
Volume 6, January/February 2015 © 2014 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Habitual behaviors or patterns of practice?
intentions through persuasive appeals. J Consum Psy-
chol 2011, 21:302–311.
76. Meijkamp R, Aarts H. Breaking through habitual
behaviour: is car sharing an instrument for reducing
car use? PTRC Publications, 1997, 413:309–322.
77. Mann E, Abraham C. The role of affect in UK
commuters’ travel mode choices: an interpretative
phenomenological analysis. Br J Psychol 2006,
97:155–176.
78. Schulz M. Controlled chaos: European cities do away
with traffic signs. 2006. Available at: http://www.
spiegel.de/international/spiegel/controlled-chaos-
european-cities-do-away-with-traffic-signs-a-448747.
html. (Accessed January 3, 2014).
79. Rozin P, Scott S, Dingley M, Urbanek JK, Jiang H,
Kaltenbach M. Nudge to nobesity I: minor changes
in accessibility decrease food intake. Judgment Decis
Making 2011, 6:323–332.
80. Wansink B, van Ittersum K. Portion size me: plate-size
induced consumption norms and win-win solutions for
reducing food intake and waste. J Exp Psychol Appl
2013, 19:320–332.
81. Williams ED. Assessing the potential of telecommut-
ing as an energy savings technology in Japan. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 2003 IEEE International Symposium
on Electronics & the Environment. Boston, MA: The
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; 2003,
147–152.
82. Jones CHD, Ogilvie D. Motivations for active com-
muting: a qualitative investigation of the period of
home or work relocation. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act
2012, 9:109.
83. Verplanken B, Roy D. Consumer habits and sustain-
able consumption. In: Reisch L, Thøgersen J, eds.
Handbook of sustainable consumption. Cheltenham,
UK: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2014.
84. Wood W, Tam L, Guerrero Witt M. Changing circum-
stances, disrupting habits. J Pers Soc Psychol 2005,
88:918–933.
85. Fujii S, Gärling T. Changes in drivers’ perceptions
and use of public transport during a freeway closure:
effects of temporary structural change on cooperation
in a real-life social dilemma. Environ Behav 2001,
33:796–808.
86. Wibowo SS, Qiranawangsih A. Potential of habit-
ual change on car use as a response to fuel price
policies—case study on Bandung metropolitan area.
Proc East Asia Soc Transport Stud 2013, 9:69.
87. Convery F, McDonnell S, Ferreira S. The most popular
tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish plastic bag levy.
Environ Resour Econ 2007, 38:1–11.
88. Shove E. Putting practice into policy: reconfigur-
ing questions of consumption and climate change.
Contemporary Social Science 2012. doi:10.1080/
21582041.2012.692484. Available at: http://www.
tandfonline.com/.
127
 Advanced Review
89. Thøgersen J, Ölander F. Spillover of environment-
friendly consumer behaviour. J Environ Psychol 2003,
23:225–236.
90. Darnton A, Verplanken B, White P, Whitmarsh L.
Habits, Routines and Sustainable Lifestyles: A Sum-
mary Report to the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs Report Number: 1. London:
AD Research & Analysis; 2011.
91. Shove E. Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and
theories of social change. Environ Plann A 2010,
42:1273–1285.
92. Bandura A. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall; 1977.
93. Reno RR, Cialdini RB, Kallgren CA. The transsitu-
ational influence of social norms. J Pers Soc Psychol
1993, 64:104.
94. Cialdini RB. Crafting normative messages to pro-
tect the environment. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2003,
12:105–109.
95. Aiello A, Bonaiuto M. Rhetorical approach and dis-
cursive psychology: the study of environmental dis-
course. In: Bonnes M, Lee T, Bonaiuto M, eds. Psycho-
logical Theories for Environmental Issues. Aldershot:
Ashgate; 2003, 235–270.
96. Kurz T, Donaghue N, Rapley M, Walker I. The
ways that people talk about natural resources: dis-
cursive strategies as barriers to environmentally
sustainable practices. Br J Soc Psychol 2005, 44:
603–620.
97. Kurz T, Augoustinos M, Crabb S. Contesting the
‘national interest’ and maintaining ‘our lifestyle’: a
discursive analysis of political rhetoric around climate
change. Br J Soc Psychol 2010, 49:601–625.
128 © 2014 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
wires.wiley.com/climatechange
98. Wallwork J, Dixon JA. Foxes, green fields and British-
ness: on the rhetorical construction of place and
national identity. Br J Soc Psychol 2004, 43:21–39.
99. Denford S, Abraham C, Smith J, Lloyd JJ, White M,
Tarrant M, Wyatt K, Greaves C, Dean S. Designing and
evaluating behavior change interventions to promote
health. In: Reynolds KJ, Branscombe NR, eds. The
Psychology of Change: Life Contexts, Experiences,
and Identities. New York: Psychology Press; 2015.
100. de Bruijn G-J, van den Putte B. Adolescent soft drink
consumption, television viewing and habit strength.
Investigating clustering effects in the Theory of
Planned Behaviour. Appetite 2009, 53:66–75.
101. Pickering A. The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency,
and Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press;
1995.
102. Preda A. The turn to things: arguments for a sociolog-
ical theory of things. Sociol Q 1999, 40:347–366.
103. Latour B. When things strike back: a possible contri-
bution of “science studies” to the social sciences. B J
Sociol 2000, 51:107–125.
104. Shove E. On the difference between chalk and
cheese—a response to Whitmarsh et al’s comments
on “Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and
theories of social change”. Environ Plann A 2011,
43:262–264.
105. Whitmarsh L, O’Neill S, Lorenzoni I. Climate change
or social change? Debate within, amongst, and beyond
disciplines. Environ Plann A 2011, 43:258–261.
106. Wilson C, Chatterton T. Multiple models to inform
climate change policy: a pragmatic response to the
‘beyond the ABC’ debate. Environ Plann A 2011,
43:2781–2787.
Volume 6, January/February 2015